Very unfortunate, but strategically this changes nothing for US spaceflight. If anything, SpaceX will continue to increase its dominance.

▲

ezfe 14 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Blue Origin is challenging SpaceX - they are not the incumbent. I'm not sure how you can say that SpaceX will increase dominance despite this.

▲

nickvec 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

One can be the dominant player in a field and still increase dominance.

▲

d_silin 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

SpaceX will increase the lead from all potential competitors even further.

▲

bigyabai 13 hours ago | parent [-]

It's a static fire test. There weren't any payloads inside, this isn't very bad PR.

	▲	anonymousiam 13 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Not very bad, except that they lost the whole rocket, and damaged the launch complex. No big deal. What's a few hundred mil and a one year delay...

▲

0xffff2 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Unless the comment was edited, the person you replied to never said anything about "despite"?

▲

testing22321 13 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Blue Origin are challenging SpaceX about as much as I’m challenging Michael Jordan.

Sure we’re playing the same game, but the divide is enormous

▲

Rover222 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Please look at total mass launched to space by SpaceX vs the rest of the world combined. They are the most incumbent launcher in history.

Unless you're talking about moon landers specifically.

Anyway, competition is good and this is a bummer.

▲

senectus1 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

it'll probably be a favorable event for SpaceX's IPO.

▲

7e 14 hours ago | parent [-]

Surely not as favorable for the IPO as SpaceX’s own recent explosion and multiple engine failures?

▲

rdtsc 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

If anything their one engine out unexpected but successful test boosts their position a bit.

▲

TheOtherHobbes 7 hours ago | parent [-]

After separation that turned into all engines out on the booster, so perhaps not.

	▲	rdtsc an hour ago \| parent [-]
		I meant the engine on the Raptor. But yeah good point about the booster. However that's nowhere near as large of a set back as this explosion

▲

kortilla 14 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Blowing up on the pad is incredibly worse from a design data collection perspective, a risk to life perspective, and a downstream impact to future launches perspective (nobody can use that site for a couple of months).

▲

HerbManic 12 hours ago | parent | next [-]

To be fair the last Starship to blowup on launchpad/ground was less than a year ago. It is a set back but it appears nobody has avoided this issue yet.

https://www.livescience.com/space/space-exploration/spacexs-...

▲

testing22321 12 hours ago | parent [-]

That was on a test stand, NOT a launchpad.

Vastly different destroying each of those.

	▲	HerbManic 10 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I will give you that. Better to blow up in a test rather than ready for launch.

▲

senectus1 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

not to mention 7 days before it was meant to deliver a payload to space... a proper commercial payload. not just a POC payload.

▲

testing22321 13 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The entire point of SpaceX’s recent launch was an explosion. They were aiming for that outcome. They wanted that outcome.

The fact they did it with pinpoint accuracy even with engine issues and an in tact heat shield is a monumental success for a test flight.

▲

verzali 12 hours ago | parent [-]

SpaceX also had a massive explosion on the ground not that long ago.

	▲	testing22321 11 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Absolutely, they were running a test on a test stand. For BO it’s much better to have this now when there is no payload or people on board so they can correct whatever the issue is.